ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2022
Standardizing the measurement and classification of quality of life using the Keratoconus End-Points Assessment Questionnaire (KEPAQ): the ABCDEF keratoconus classification.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Pediatric Eye Questionnaire in Chinese Children with Uveitis: A Rasch Analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- One-Year Results of a Posterior Chamber Toric Phakic Intraocular Lens Implantation in Patients with Keratoconus.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring quality of life is of importance in keratoconus. So far, the Keratoconus End-Points Assessment Questionnaire (KEPAQ) is the only keratoconus-specific scale to measure emotional well-being along with functional compromise in this population. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of clarity and standardization as to how KEPAQ scores should be computed and reported. There are also no guidelines for interpretation of classification of quality of life when using this instrument. The purpose of this study is to provide a specific framework on how to grade and classify keratoconus by using the KEPAQ and propose an extension of current classification to encompass subjective compromise.
methodsA group of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of keratoconus underwent application of the KEPAQ. First, a Rasch modeling was performed to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of both sub-scales of the instrument. Then, a linear transformation was performed to turn data into a more relatable scale ranging from 0 to 100. Finally, by using Tukey's Hinges, scores of the KEPAQ were divided in a 1-to-4 scale, allowing for an easy E&F classification system.
resultsA total of 386 applications of the KEPAQ were included. Analysis provided evidence of the KEPAQ being unidimensional, well-fitted to the Rasch Model, and provided adequate interval-level scores. Linear transformation resulted in a user-friendly final score ranging from 0 to 100, where a higher score translates to having a better quality of life. Two methods of easily computing final score, one by hand and the other one by an Excel file, were constructed. An E&F 1-to-4 classification was proposed, which may work well with the current ABCD classification of keratoconus.
conclusionsThe KEPAQ is a psychometrically robust scale, which confidently measures both emotional-related and functional-related quality of life in patients with keratoconus. It can be easily computed, and the results are interpretable and classified in a manner similar to that used in the ABCD keratoconus classification, by adding letters 'E' for emotional and 'F' for functional compromise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.